What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
Jonathan has been on a witch hunt to discredit the subject of this article. There are 35 sources from well-known media publications that are all relevant and current and yet Joshua is digging up anonymous blogs created many years ago and posting them on the original page. A wiki editor is only supposed to include citations from credible published sources, not blogs by anonymous people on the internet. Joshua has also been involved in posting content that is libelous against the subject of the article who is a noted Buddhist leader and chaplain. Joshua's own userpage has the words "Smash the Buddha in the backyard" which shows a bias against Buddhism and may be the driving force behind his crusade. Other users have also commented on Joshua's attitude towards Indian spiritual leaders on his Talk page.
Jonathan feels that the subject of an article may be the same subject of another article that was created 5 or more years ago. The new article has only current links from 2016 onwards and no bearing from anything many years back. The Talk page is full of points relating to this discussion and we need a fair, 3rd party to mediate or help us get to the Arbitration committee.
"added a quote from Joshua's user page which says "smash the Buddha" - this shows a racist propensity to attack Buddhism and Buddhist leaders and may be driving his agenda."
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.
Reject. Fails to satisfy prerequisite to mediation #8, "No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums." An articles for deletion case is pending on this article, which has a form of built-in dispute resolution. Even if this had not been rejected on that basis, this case comes very close to being rejected as a case about editor conduct rather than about article content, see prerequisite to mediation #3. If the article survives the deletion request and this case is refiled, please limit the issues and counter-issues strictly to issues about content, not editor conduct. If either party wishes to address editor conduct, they should speak to an administrator or, after carefully reading and following the instructions there, file at ANI. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
